say not separate as I have noted above for Nestorius professed a Conjunction though not a Personal Union and if the Doctor stands strictly upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Nestorius had cut the whole and rendred one part here and another there he obtrudes upon him what he never thought of Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hesychius tells us and this Nestorius did though he did not separate them and this Dr More seems to do in his Answer to the Objector if he justifies as he doth justifie all in his Preface what he saith he wrote lib. 9. cap. 2. I bring in saith he there Christ as made up if one may so speak of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem If one may so speak is but a necessary mollifying of the foregoing word made up of not of what follows without any mollifying of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusaelem Now whosoever distinguisheth really though he do not separate the second Hypostasis i. e. Person of the Trinity from the Humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem speaks that which is Heresie and if after idoneous admonition he doth defend and say he demonstrates that he hath therein writ no Errour may be judged an Heretick though he do add that Christ is made up of these two but as one may so speak for Nestorius himself would have forwardly concurred in such a modification Made up of them but as one may so speak But the Doctor pretends that in naming the humane Person of Christ alone he doth no more divide Christ into two Hypostases then he that names Christs Humane Nature alone doth divide him into two Natures which were it done that is were his two natures cut asunder it would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union I cannot say whether this Plea be more bold or vain Most bold it is to dally in such great Points and childishly to argue from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used about Christs Person as if they imported such a cutting asunder as is made by a knife when it divides a stick into two pieces And most vain it is for first Christs two natures though united in one Person are still two really distinct Natures wherefore he who names one of them alone doth not thereby cut asunder the Personal Union of both no more then he who names Dr Mores Body alone or his Soul alone cuts asunder the Union of his Body and Soul in one Person but he who names an Humane Person of Christ alone in distinction from a Divine Person of Christ as the Doctor here doth most undenyably divides Christ into two persons and infers as much as lies in him the dissolution of the Hypostatical Union of two natures in one person And should any Man so far dote as to speak of the Person of Dr Mores Body and the Person of his Soul who doubts but such words would import a dissolution of that one Person which results from the Union of the Doctors Soul and Body Sect. 14. he adds Though I say that the Hypostases remain intire yet my so expressly affirming them Hypostatically united shews plainly that they do not remain Intire separately but united unconfoundedly And doth not Nestorius himself acknowledge that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unconfounded Conjunction of the two Natures How differs this from the Doctors conclusion that the two Hypostases remain not Intire separately but united unconfoundedly Nestorius was as far from separating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Humane Nature as Dr More Nor can the Doctors affirming that the two Hypostases are hypostatically united though those two Hypostases remain Intire be any excuse for him unless he will bring an impossibility for his Apologie for to be hypostatically united is to become One Hypostasis but if the two Hypostases remain Intire they are certainly two Hypostases and not onely One unless the Doctor hath any trick to prove that two in the very same Notion can be one and one two Sect. 15. he concludes with this jolly vaunt I have not departed from the very language and sense of the Councils and Athanasius his Creed in adventuring to say that the Humane Person of Christ Jesus concurs with the Divine Hypostasis which confessedly all men will grant to be well rendred here the Divine Person for the making up one Christ Truly to use the language of the Councils and S. Athanasius his Creed was no such high valour in a Doctor of Divinity that he should term it an Adventure But to prove his Consonance with the Councils he shews that the Greek Church calls the three Hypostases as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence he infers that the Council of Chalcedon manifestly allows a concurse of the Divine and Humane Hypostases for the making that one Person which is called Christ. The Councils words he cites are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Binius his Copie it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Binius omits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense he pins upon the Council he draws from those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer though some Greek writers be granted to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not that the Council of Chalcedon uses it so here Nay that it doth not use it so here is evident by comparing the premised words with these in question those words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which later words are an Illustration and Assertion of the former the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures viz. of the Divine and Humane is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away by the Union but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Property of each Nature by which they are differenced from one another namely the one being impassible the other passible c. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is concurring into one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council must understand that to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved which it saith was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away that which was not taken away was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Difference of the Natures is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved and concurring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one Hypostasis Observe then the Doctors boldness who in his Translation of this Citation which he subjoyns to the
them And here he hath minted a very pretty one witness those words not actually concurring as a potential Principle but let him have it He proceeds I need onely add That Hypostasis in the concrete sense is the same that Suppositum in the abstract subsistentia and that subsistere is sometimes in the very language of the Schools said of an individual substance although it exist dependently upon another Suppositum as in the Humane Nature of Christ. And lastly for Persona it is nothing but Suppositum Rationale Let him have all this too to please him Now he answers to the Objection Sect. 13. thus I do not bring in an Humane Person of Christ without any mincing of the matter For at the very first naming of the terms I both modestly and cautiously ask leave in these words Now that the Humane Person of Christ as I may so call it is not to be laid aside c. Most acutely The Objector saith not that Dr More brought in the Humane Person of Christ without any mincing of the matter at the first naming of the terms but expresly saith That he so brings it in Afterwards Now the Doctor proves that he did not so bring it in because at his very first naming of the terms he inserts this Parenthesis as I may so call it Is not this Answer direct and apposite But he would perswade us that by this Parenthesis he modestly and cautiously asked leave How modest a Creature this Doctor is appears as by the general strein of his Writings so by his particular censure of the Schoolmen and impudent reflection upon three Kings at once which I noted but now And how cautious is too too legible in those foul and dangerous Opinions into which he hath plunged himself no man forcing him thereunto Nay to see the unluckiness of it in this very particular where he boasts of both there is neither modesty nor caution He saith he ask'd leave but of whom did he ask it or did he Modestly and Cautiously stay for an Answer to know whether such leave would or might be granted him suppose I should here say That Dr More is as I may so call him a Nestorian Heretick you will easily think the Doctor would be offended though I should plead that modestly and cautiously ask'd leave in those words as I may so call him But the Doctor should have known that it was not lawfull for him or any other Christian to use any expressions which are of an heretical import especially in such high points And for so doing no leave can modestly be asked seeing it is Impudence to desire Liberty of speaking what is Heresie or what may vehemently and justly be suspected thereof Nor can any such leave justly be given though it be asked He proceeds I interserted those words viz. the Parenthesis mentioned as being well assured in my own judgement that whatsoever might otherwise be a suppositum of it self if it once concur as a Potential Principle with some other Hypostasis for the making up one Hypostasis it loseth then the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis it being then not actually such but potentially and in that sense onely it can be called an Hypostasis and there is the same reason of Persona Reader would you know the Doctors Drift in these words It is to prepare you to swallow what he saith Sect. 14. viz. That though he names 2 Hypostases in Christ yet he understands the Humane Hypostasis to be but improperly so termed to wit Because it concurs as a potential Principle with the Divine Hypostasis for the making up one Hypostasis A quaint Fetch the Doctor frequently named the Humane Person of Christ and now we must believe that he meant it improperly yea though by his own confession he declared in the forecited place Book 9. ch 2. Sect. 6. that both the Hypostases in Christ remain still intire Intire and yet Improperly But still the very ground of his Fetch fails him For first it supposes 2 Hypostases actually such namely in this point the Divine actual Hypostasis and the Humane actual Hypostasis for upon their Concurrence into one he saith that they lose the proper nature and Definition of an Hypostasis But they cannot lose what they had not and if they had the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis they must needs be Actual Hypostases Secondly he supposes these two Actual Hypostases to concur into one third Hypostasis and that hereupon either of the two which did thus concur though they cease to be actually two Hypostases yet Potentially they continue such and in that sense i. e. improperly may still be termed Hypostases Now let the Doctor shew us How Christs Humanity was once a complete intire Hypostasis by it self and afterward concurrent with his Divinity to make up the Hypostasis of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Concurrence it lost the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis it being then not actually such but potentially otherwise his premised Devise will stand him in no stead His second Answer is that he was necessitated to use this Term because of the Familists with whom he disputed c. This necessity if such was made by himself for who necessitated him to dispute with the Familists But the Doctor can never perswade sober men that there is no disputing with Hereticks unless the Disputer makes bold to speak like an Heretick himself If the Familists would as he here pretends have melted the Catholick expression into a Mystical meaning it concerned him not therefore to change that Catholick expression but so to fortifie it that the Familists might not have been able justly and rationally to have avoided it Yet this is not all I must have leave plainly to tell him that his dispute with the Familists was not the thing that necessitated him to call it the Humane Person of Christ and that this is both a frivolous and ridiculous excuse for his dispute with them is in his 6th Book from the 12. chap. to the end of that Book but in his 9th Book Chap. 2. Sect. 6. he again calls it the Humane Person of Christ though he meddles not there with the Familists Wherefore for his using that phrase there was some other motive which I doubt not but himself well wots of His third Answer in the same 13th Sect. runs thus It brings nothing of Nestorianism in with it because though I name the Humane Person of Christ alone yet I do no more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he that names the Humane Nature of Christ alone doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if they were cut asunder would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union also The ground of this Answer is Photius his saying that Nestorius did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the meaning of those words is onely this That Nestorius acknowledged not the two Natures Divine and Humane united in one Person but made them two Distinct Persons Distinct I
original renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hypostasis or proper subsistency And let me add that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are really divers and distinct in one and the same Divine Nature each of them with that one common Nature or Essence is a person by himself but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there are three really distinct persons in one Nature and here there are two really dictinct Natures in one Person but not two really distinct Persons in one Person See now whether he hath any better luck in vouching his language to be sutable to the Athanasian Creed He saith Sect. 16. It is no Soloecism to call the Humane Nature of Christ an Hypostasis the words of the Creed declaring him to be Perfect God and perfect Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then defining what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting not consisting And can there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not Hypostasis But I must confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here in a less proper sense but it being used and I understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when I apply it to the Humane nature of Christ in no other sense then the Creed I think I am wholly irreprehensible for so doing And thus the whole imputation of Nestorianism hath vanished into a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or less O impregnable Doctor First I note that he builds here upon the Greek of the Athanasian Creed and if that ground be sufficient I could furnish him out of it as it is Printed in St Athanas. his Works A. D. 1627. at Paris with a place more express for his purpose then this he hath pitched on For where the Latine reads it Unus omnino non confusione substantiae sed Unitate Personae the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by unity of Persons or Hypostases in the plural But Baronius ad An. Christi 340. will tell him That St Athanasius wrote this Creed originally in the Latine not in the Greek language Let him therefore who put it into Greek answer it if he differs from the Latine Secondly Whereas in the Latine it is Perfectus homo exanima rationali humana carne subsistens the word subsistens cannot properly or improperly be understood for Hypostasis or Persona but must onely signifie what we mean in English by Being or Consisting though in our Liturgie it be rendred subsisting For it follows in the Creed Unus non confusione substantiae sed Unitate Personae which is spoken of Christ as he is God and Man Wherefore St Athanasius determining in this clause the Divine and Humane Natures of Christ to be one Person he cannot be imagined in those precedent words ex anima rationali humanâ carne subsistens spoken of the Humane Nature to have any ways meant that Humane Nature to be Persona unless we should fancy him to write Repugnancies in his Creed Thirdly If the Doctor would justifie his calling Christs Humanity the Humane Person of Christ by this Creed he should shew us where the Creed calls it so Had he onely said that Christs Humanity is of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting who would have quarrelled with him for that Expression for that Subsistere in the Primitive Churches Latine did often signifie no more then Esse appears by Iob 7. 21. Lam. 4. 17. Esa. 17. 14. Ierem. 10. 20. Iob 8. 22. 3. 16. 7. 8. to add no more in the Vulgar Translation Thus the Doctor hath by his Apologie much mended the matter Had not the better way been to have honestly acknowledged his Unadvisedness and Errour in calling it the Humane Person of Christ and to have imitated Him who ingenously said Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo But this would have grated too fore upon his obstinate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Upon the 7th Objection Touching Gods conveying a false Perswasion into the minde of his Creature HERE the Doctor paves his way by certain Aphorisms of his own forging and if he hath not made them home to his own purpose it is pitty but he should hear of it His first Aphorism is this That nothing but Conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere can be properly the Promulgation of any Law Will or Command of Gods to that soul. And the reason he gives is Because he that is sincere is willing and ready to know and do any thing that is the minde of God he should do and doth his best endeavour to know it and do it Whenas on the contrary he that is not sincere but false to the present light he hath and knowingly and wittingly sins against his own Conscience such a man may justly be likened to one that stops his ears and will not hear the Law of his Prince which it being in his power notwithstanding to hear the Law is justly deemed to be promulgated to him Because a sincere man is ready to know and do Gods Wâ—… and Law is therefore that Will and Law not promulgateâ— to that man till his Conscience is convinced A very strangâ— Reason How in Gods Name can any mans Conscience be convinced of Gods Law before the Law be promulgated and made known to that man Can he be convinced of he knows not what If then he must first know it before he can be convinced of it then must it first be Promulgated And it 〈◊〉 must first be Promulgated then his conviction of Conscience which ensues thereupon cannot properly be as the Doctor affirms the Promulgation of it How else could the Doctor say That the Law is justly deemed to be Promulgated to the Unsincere man though he stops his ears and hardens his heart against it for if to receive and in conscience yield to the Law be the proper Promulgation of it to any man it must be so to every man and the Doctor deals but hardly with his unsincere man if he gives him not leave to plead That because he is not convinced in his Conscience therefore the Law was never Promulgated to him Nor can the Doctor evade this by his comparing the unsincere man to one who stops his ears and so doth not actually hear the Kings Law Proclaimed though he be present at the Proclamation For first did the Doctor ever know any man come to a Proclamation and stop his ears when he is come Secondly Suppose him so vain and wilfull as to stop his ears yet by that very act he acknowledgeth the Proclamation and that the Law is Promulgated to him that he might hear it if he would Thirdly Though his ears were open yet his heart mean while may be shut and he may actually hear the Proclamation and yet not count himself in conscience bound to obey the Law Proclaimed as the
Organized Light But the truth is those words of his are slye the Body of Christ in Heaven is not Terrestrial Flesh and Bones but of a more refined nature Why saith he not but Celestial Flesh and Bones Even because he would not retract his Errour charged in the Objection So that I cannot believe he means any thing else by a more refined nature than Organized Light Hereupon he concludes with that of the Apostle Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God But had he added the next words which are part of the Apostles sentence Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption he had betrayed how little St Paul favours his design For by Gods Power the Terrestrial Body shall of corruptible be made incorruptible and then it may inherit the Kingdom of God For corruptible flesh and blood cannot inherit and such is our flesh and blood before the Resurrection there being no proportion between Corruption and Incorruption But as he adds V. 53. this Corruptible must put on Incorruption and this Mortal must put on Immortality Whence 't is evident by the Apostles Doctrine that the same Flesh and Blood which before was Corruptible and at the Resurrection or final Change is made Incorruptible shall reside in Heaven For he says not This Corruptible shall vanish or perish but It shall put on Incorruption remain therefore still it must So that the Doctor needed not to have amused his Reader with a tedious Discourse as he doth in the following part of this Chapter to prove That Glorified Bodies are Angelical Spiritual and Celestial for still they may nevertheless be the same Flesh and Bones they were here in this life though never so much Refined Immortalized and Beautified by the Power of God Sect. 4. Christ argues thus Luk. 20. 36. They cannot dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they are equal to the Angels which would be scarce an Illustration much less a Proof and convincing Illation unless it be understood in the sense I above intimated For it would be but a Languid kinde of reasoning and of small satisfaction to conclude the sons of the Resurrection immortal because they are immortal as the Angels are immortal that looks like the proving idem per idem And yet this would be all if they were equal to the Angels onely in that thing Be it granted that Christ compares not the sons of the Resurrection to Angels onely in respect of Immortality for the comparison stands also in perpetual celibate which alone is mentioned S. Matt. 22. 30. Yet still by this acute Doctors leave 't is no languid Reasoning nor looks it like the proving idem per idem to argue that the sons of the Resurrection cannot die that is are Immortal by asserting them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for seeing Angels are Immortal These also must needs be Immortal who in reference to their Duration for the text in S. Luke which the Doctor hath chosen instances in this as well as in celibate are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ argues not that they are therefore Immortal because they are Immortal as Angels are Immortal this is the Doctors saucy and blasphemous detortion of our Lords Argument but that they are Immortal because they are exalted to that condition of life which Angels enjoy and which doubtless is Immortal To say that such a thing cannot sink for 't is just like a cork such a thing cannot rot for 't is equal to an Adamant would be no languid reasoning nor proving idem per idem That which the Doctor drives at in this 4th section is to prove that humane Bodies after the resurrection shall become equal to the Bodies of Angels and he saies expresly Nor can the condition of their Bodies be left out as touching the nature and glory of them but a Son of the Resurrection and an Angel must be in every such regard all one Now if it be granted him that mens bodies shall become of the same Nature with those of Angels he presumes that they cannot be flesh and bones But first I must ask him who talks so confidently of Angels Bodies where he findes in Scripture that they have any proper and natural bodies of their own that they assume bodies in which they appear to Men and that their actions or offices are represented to us by corporal Descriptions is in condescent to our weakness whose apprehensions depend so much upon sense But if this would prove Angels to be naturally clothed with Bodies the like may be concluded of God himself to whom scripture in compliance with our Infirmity attributes corporeal parts Again if the Doctor will fix upon the Bodies of Angels mentioned in Scripture upon the account I have intimated he may do well to remember that in those descriptions Angels are generally represented with wings and some of them with 4. some with 6. wings apiece That Ezechiel ch 10. affirms that the living Creatures which he saw by the river of Chebar were Cherubims which Cherubims had the soles of their feet like those of Calves their hands under their wings like those of a Man and for their faces each of them had 4. one of a Man one of a Lyon one of an Ox one of an Eagle Now to which of the Angels will the Doctor have the sons of the Resurrection be like to those who wear one pair of wings or to those who wear two or to those who have quadruple faces But if he fancies for the Angels any other shapes or vehicles then what he findes mentioned in Scripture why must we believe that he does not dote or what reason have we to build any thing upon his Imagination of matters so far above his reach But all this while he forces the Text in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is plainly restrained in the Evangelists to celibate and Immortality Nor does the word it self require the sense he pins upon it for men in heaven may be Equal to the Angels though not in all respects and we know that Christ is Equal to the Father touching his Godhead yet inferiour to the Father touching his Manhood that when the labourers S. Matt. 20. 12. tell their Master 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast made them equal to us they meant no more then Equal in Wages Besides if as the Doctor affirms the nature of humane bodies in heaven must be all one with that of Angels it will be hard for him to shew that he leaves any distinction between Angels and Men hereafter Nay it will follow that though Christ at his Incarnation took not on him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham yet that distinction is now out of date and instead of the seed of Abraham he is joyn'd to the race of Angels wearing no longer the body derived from Abraham but one of the same nature with those of the Angels Which seems to me a new Transubstantiation and for ought I have yet heard first minted by Dr. Henry More
And yet after much needless talk about the Lucidity and Angelicalness of Christs glorified Body in the 7th Section he seems in good part to have forgot what he wrote in the 4th for he saies Calvin seems to be afraid of the Opinion of the Body being spiritual as imploying a substantial change or as the schools speak a specifical one which would most certainly clash with our Saviours having the same Numerical Body he suffer'd in But according to the truth of Philosophy there is no specifical change in the most contrary Modifications of Matter imaginable but onely Accidental And what then means all this long stir about Terrestrial flesh and bones If the change be not specifical then the Nature of humane Bodies is not changed to the Nature of Angelick Bodies And if the change be onely accidental then the glorified Bodies of Men in Heaven are and must be the very same Flesh and Bones they were on earth onely enriched with nobler Accidents then is Christs Body the same Flesh and Bones which it was in this life Indeed the Doctor himself Sect. 8. grants upon what ground let himself look that The Body which is now truely Earthy may if God will become in a moment as perfectly and physically Heavenly and remain still the same Numerical Body If it so remain it must remain Flesh and Bones and the same Flesh and Bones it was before One would now expect that what he hath here granted should perswade him to acknowledge his rashness in saying as was objected Christs Body in heaven to be Organized Light not Flesh and Bones Yet Sect. 11. where he comes to solve as he saies the Objection his words are What harshness is there to call that Body Light that is to say a Luminous or Lucid Body which for its brightness exceeds the Sun it self according to testimony of holy Writ Or what Incongruity to say it is Organized it being so according to the common consent of the whole Church and the meaning of the Scripture You see the Doctor will needs maintain that 't was not Harsh to call Christs Body Light that is to say a Lucid or Luminous Body So that in his Dictionary Light and Lucid or Luminous Body are one and the same thing and they must signifie accordingly in an high Point of Religion rather then he should seem to have spoken so much as Harshly Christs Body is granted to be Lucid and Splendid but it is not therefore Light or splendor Dr. More is philosophical but no man especially if he reads this passage will yield that he is Philosophy it self Yet admit it were not Harsh meerly to call Christs Body Light that 's not the case here for the Doctor not onely calls it Organized Light but affirms also that it is not flesh and Bones Which in effect is to affirm that instead of Flesh and Bones it is now nothing else but Organized Light And whether this sounds not Harsh let Christian Ears judge To say That Christs Body is Organized is indeed as the Doctor pleads no Incongruity at all But with fine Legerdemain he would make his Reader think that this was part of the Question Wherefore he very gravely vouches it by the Common consent of the whole Church and by the Meaning of Scriptures Whereas the Question is whether if Christs Body be Light it can be Organized for Light is a similary thing but an Organized Body must consist of parts Dissimilary nor can the Doctor with all his cunning make out though he attempts it afterward in this Chapter how Christs Body can consist of Flesh and Bones with other corporeal Ingredients and be furnished with humane Organs if his whole Bodies mass be Light Luminous and splendid it is but that this Brightness swallows up the proper distinctions of his Parts and Members which he had here on Earth and Organizes him anew in Heaven this I deny Moses his Bush when all of a flame continued the same Bush with all its several branches and twigs When Moses his own face shined it was not become Light but onely Lucid still the distinct parts of it remained as really and truly the same as before In Christs Transfiguration on the Mount his face did shine as the Sun and his Rayment was white as the Light S. Matt. 17. 2 But still it was his face both of the same substance and Organized in the same manner as before though it so shined as not before For if it were turned to Organized Light was not his Rayment turned to Light also and will the Doctor venture to say that this Rayment was not at that time of the very same substance and matter and of the very same distinct parts it was of before But in short the Description of Christs glorified Body taken out of Apoc. 1. 13. which the Doctor cites as for his own purpose Sect. 6. mentioneth his Head and Hair to be white as wooll or snow his Eyes as a flame of fire his Feet as burning brass his Countenance as the sun shining in his strength What mean these several Comparisons of divers parts of his Body to such several things if all his Body had been nothing but Light Wooll Snow yea and burning Brass are far short of the Sun shining in his strength but supposing all his Body to be Light his Head Hair and Feet must have shined like the meridian Sun no less then his Countenance However the Doctor cannot deny but here remained Christs Head Face Feet and consequently his other Parts wherefore all these in Him who was then also truly Man must needs be of humane substance Flesh and Bones Sect. 12. Upon a fancy of his own he thus proceeds It never came into my minde to imagine that his Body melted into mere Air but that it being terrestrially modified and organized kept the exact shape still and feature but that all cloggings of the terrestrial modification were quelled and abolished The Objection was that he made Christs Body Organized Light as that is opposed to Flesh and Bones and being now well warm in his Apologie touching this Point he professes that he did not make it mere Air. Is not this mightily pertinent Yet indeed I must confess that he who puts Organized Light for a Luminous Organized Substance may as well be allowed to put mere Air for pure Light But Sect. 13. touching his having denyed Christs Body to be Flesh and Bones he thus apologizes Where I oppose a Body of Flesh and Bones to that lucid Body of our Saviour I understand Natural flesh and bones not Glorified and therefore I doe not deny that there is Glorified flesh and bones in this illustrious Body of Christ Thus he saies he understands now But did he so when he wrote his Mystery If he did ought he not to have expressed that this was his sense especially seeing his Words on which the Objection is founded carry a sense quite contrary Might he not here with more credit have acknowledged Rashness